Nirvana: posited or indicated

[Supramundane]

Early Pali sutras in the Nikaya discourage speculation about Nirvana; when asked directly about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiles or says: ‘go find it’.

There could be a very simple explanation for this, namely, that Nirvana is posited as a logical consequence of samsara. Just as enlightenment is posited as a logical consequence of ignorance ---meaning that since there is ignorance, logically, it follows that there must be the possibility of enlightenment. If samsara exists, then the possibility for Nirvana must also exist. Therefore, Nirvana is not so much a goal of Buddhism but simply a logical assumption borne out by logic and intuition.

The Abhidharma goes into detail: it maintains that there are four elements: physical (rupa), mental events (cetasika), consciousness (citta) and finally a fourth element, Nirvana.

It goes on to explain that consciousness is an interplay of material phenomena, mental phenomena and an object. When the three come upon together, consciousness arises. This co-dependent arising gives birth to karma. As a result, everything is relational; consciousness lacks self-essence and is simply a network where every object is an instantaneous movement of disintegration and formation. Form is an essence-less interrelationship of inter-being.

Therefore, if we can break this dynamic, whereby this interplay does not occur, we will experience Nirvana. It follows that Nirvana does not appear or disappear, but it is right now all around us --- it is empty but not emptiness. It is a very specific element. When the aggregates do not appear, this ‘something else’ appears.

If consciousness does not latch on to any of the three elements, it will attach itself to Nirvana. However, having some experience with meditation, I can tell you that this is not an easy feat! In fact, it may be impossible…

If it were an easy feat, we would not have to produce thousands of forum posts explaining the precepts of Buddhism; each person would simply be guided through meditation, experience Nirvana, and no further teaching would be necessary… right?

Even one second of experiencing Nirvana would be sufficient to impart all of the knowledge of Buddhism to a new follower. After all, why explain codependent arising or dependent origination or emptiness if one could simply experience Nirvana and grasp all those concepts intuitively!?! Nevertheless, I have never heard of such a system. If there was such a system, surely the Buddha would have simply written it down step by step, and we would follow it without having to refer to a sutra or log onto dharmawheel…

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

This is why, as I explained in the beginning of this post, I believe Nirvana could simply be a logical assumption based on the facts at hand. It does not mean that we can easily experience it.

When this conception of Nirvana was first articulated, there was no Theravada and Mahayana; there were only followers of the Buddha. Later , there was a bifurcation: Theravadans later believed that cessation would lead to this experience and that vipassana and the jhanas were the way to obtain it (‘the liberated mind that no longer clings is nibanna’ -Majjhima Nikaya) while Mahayanans aspired to Buddhahood, non-abiding in Nirvana (à la Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra).  

Cessation makes sense logically, but unfortunately, the phenomenological world and our senses are indeed an excellent prison: no matter how hard we try, we cannot will ourselves to cease perceiving or to simply ‘blow out’ the flame… or at least I cannot!

My question is, do you believe Nirvana is simply a ‘logical assumption’ (this would not deny it, but means that it is posited rather than indicated), or is there a tried-and-tested means to experience it? (okay, I know, I know, the standard answer is we achieve Nirvana by following the Eightfold Path… but this is easier said than done… right?).

Thank you
SM

[master of puppets]

I usually believe nivana comes after death.

Then l learned there is a way of breaking birth-death circle; (as well as samsara)

so why not experience it in this world.

ı'm no expert.

[KathyLauren]

Therefore, if we can break this dynamic, whereby this interplay does not occur, we will experience Nirvana. It follows that Nirvana does not appear or disappear, but it is right now all around us --- it is empty but not emptiness. It is a very specific element. When the aggregates do not appear, this ‘something else’ appears.

If consciousness does not latch on to any of the three elements, it will attach itself to Nirvana.

Nirvana does not appear. It simply is. We either experience it or not. When the aggregates do not appear, what is left is Nirvana. It doesn't have to appear, since it is the true nature of reality. Consciousness does not attach to Nirvana. Nirvana is non-attachment. So when consciousness does not attach to the three elements, what is left is Nirvana.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

[Supramundane]

Therefore, if we can break this dynamic, whereby this interplay does not occur, we will experience Nirvana. It follows that Nirvana does not appear or disappear, but it is right now all around us --- it is empty but not emptiness. It is a very specific element. When the aggregates do not appear, this ‘something else’ appears.

If consciousness does not latch on to any of the three elements, it will attach itself to Nirvana.

Nirvana does not appear. It simply is. We either experience it or not. When the aggregates do not appear, what is left is Nirvana. It doesn't have to appear, since it is the true nature of reality. Consciousness does not attach to Nirvana. Nirvana is non-attachment. So when consciousness does not attach to the three elements, what is left is Nirvana.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

Yes, you are correct on all counts.

Nirvana is unconditioned.

It is sometimes translated as 'the deathless'.

Thanks for the correction: consciousness does not attach and when consciousness does not attach, there is Nirvana.

I am curious, H, is this an intellectual supposition for you, or do you believe you can do it?

[Supramundane]

I usually believe nivana comes after death.

Then l learned there is a way of breaking birth-death circle; (as well as samsara)

so why not experience it in this world.

ı'm no expert.

Satori !

[Queequeg]

I recall the Buddha in the Pali canon described several ways that a person can awaken - one of the methods is to work it out through logic. IIRC, this was not the best way. The best way is the yogic path. Faith is another path. Other might have been enumerated. Can't recall.

[Supramundane]

I recall the Buddha in the Pali canon described several ways that a person can awaken - one of the methods is to work it out through logic. IIRC, this was not the best way. The best way is the yogic path. Faith is another path. Other might have been enumerated. Can't recall.

Yes, this is where confusion sets in. Sometimes enlightenment is equated with Nirvana, sometimes it is not.

And in the Tatagatagharba Sutra, both terms are eschewed for that of buddhahood, adding to the confusion!

I prefer to think of enlightenment as knowing the nature of ultimate reality, whereas nirvana is ultimate reality itself.

[PadmaVonSamba]

2 corrections:
Nirvana is not the only alternative to samsara, although that is the Buddhist alternative. Moksha (Jain) is also an alternative, as is whatever they call merging with Brahma in Hindu theory.

Consciousness doesn’t “latch on” to nirvana.

Nirvana isn’t merely a logical assumption, although it might be based on your analysis. But it isn’t, because your analysis (I’m sorry to say, because you’ve obviously given this a lot of thought and research) has problems with it. A few miscalculated assumptions, and perhaps misconceptions.

[Queequeg]

I recall the Buddha in the Pali canon described several ways that a person can awaken - one of the methods is to work it out through logic. IIRC, this was not the best way. The best way is the yogic path. Faith is another path. Other might have been enumerated. Can't recall.

Yes, this is where confusion sets in. Sometimes enlightenment is equated with Nirvana, sometimes it is not.

And in the Tatagatagharba Sutra, both terms are eschewed for that of buddhahood, adding to the confusion!

I prefer to think of enlightenment as knowing the nature of ultimate reality, whereas nirvana is ultimate reality itself.

Haven't put much thought into this, but maybe its worth noting that in the Pali canon, there is a distinction between nirvana and pari-nirvana, the latter being the final exhaustion of the kamma expressed as the body.

Tathagatagarbha is several centuries and arguments removed from the Tripitaka model. Not sure if it is helpful to propose one to one comparisons between the two. They are proposing different ideas about nirvana, particularly, the difference between terminal arhatship and ultimate buddhahood.

[KathyLauren]

I am curious, H, is this an intellectual supposition for you, or do you believe you can do it?

Intellectually, I am convinced that it is not an intellectual supposition. I believe that realizing Nirvana is humanly possible. I think I have a good enough understanding of the Dharma to know how to go about realizing it. And I think that, when I try, I get indications that I am going in the right direction. Certainly enough to convince me that it is humanly possible.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

[PadmaVonSamba]

Cessation makes sense logically, but unfortunately, the phenomenological world and our senses are indeed an excellent prison: no matter how hard we try, we cannot will ourselves to cease perceiving or to simply ‘blow out’ the flame… or at least I cannot!

Don’t sell yourself short. Every time you aren’t craving something, that’s cessation.
Nirvana is the perfect extinguishing of craving. A famous Buddhist analogy is water poured onto a burning log, so the fire is extinguished.
Craving means restless discontentment.

Nevertheless, I have never heard of such a system. If there was such a system, surely the Buddha would have simply written it down step by step, and we would follow it without having to refer to a sutra…

You have suggested that the Buddha might have written out a kind of instruction manual or something, so we wouldn’t have to read the sutras (or Pali cannon)…those are the instruction manuals!


The Buddha did teach everything that one needs to know to extinguish that burning log. But beings have a lot of fire to put out, and it takes time to get to all of it.

I would recommend the zen teaching:
“On Believing in mind”
http://www.mendosa.com/way3.htm
…it’s very simple.

[Astus]

Early Pali sutras in the Nikaya discourage speculation about Nirvana;

Not exactly. The Buddha pointed out that making fabricated ideas about nirvana is a misunderstanding of its meaning (AN 4.174), just making assumptions about the state of a liberated person is mistaken (MN 72; SN 22.85).

when asked directly about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiles or says: ‘go find it’.

Said where? Rather, the Buddha taught a single path (AN 10.095) consisting of the realisation of the four noble truths (SN 56.44). The Buddha described the path on many occasions from the beginning (SN 56.11) to the end (DN 16), providing various methods (MN 52; AN 7.46). He also explained nirvana as freedom from the three unskilful roots (SN 43) and as bliss (AN 9.34).

There could be a very simple explanation for this, namely, that Nirvana is posited as a logical consequence of samsara.

There is no such logical consequence. At the same time, both the Buddha and many of his disciples experienced liberation first hand.

Therefore, if we can break this dynamic, whereby this interplay does not occur, we will experience Nirvana. It follows that Nirvana does not appear or disappear, but it is right now all around us --- it is empty but not emptiness. It is a very specific element. When the aggregates do not appear, this ‘something else’ appears.

Nirvana is the cessation of the cause of suffering, not the absence of appearances.

[Astus]

When the aggregates do not appear, what is left is Nirvana. It doesn't have to appear, since it is the true nature of reality. Consciousness does not attach to Nirvana. Nirvana is non-attachment. So when consciousness does not attach to the three elements, what is left is Nirvana.

There is no consciousness apart from the aggregates (SN 22.53). It's not appearances but clinging that causes suffering (SN 35.191), and when there is no clinging, nirvana is attained in this life (SN 35.118).

[LastLegend]

Nirvana of Mahayana or Southern Schools? They are two distinct things. Mahayana has Mahaprajna.

[Supramundane]

When the aggregates do not appear, what is left is Nirvana. It doesn't have to appear, since it is the true nature of reality. Consciousness does not attach to Nirvana. Nirvana is non-attachment. So when consciousness does not attach to the three elements, what is left is Nirvana.

There is no consciousness apart from the aggregates (SN 22.53). It's not appearances but clinging that causes suffering (SN 35.191), and when there is no clinging, nirvana is attained in this life (SN 35.118).

I believe KL is correct here, Astus. We are referring in our discussion to Abhidharma where it is stipulated in this manner.

[Supramundane]

Cessation makes sense logically, but unfortunately, the phenomenological world and our senses are indeed an excellent prison: no matter how hard we try, we cannot will ourselves to cease perceiving or to simply ‘blow out’ the flame… or at least I cannot!

Don’t sell yourself short. Every time you aren’t craving something, that’s cessation.
Nirvana is the perfect extinguishing of craving. A famous Buddhist analogy is water poured onto a burning log, so the fire is extinguished.
Craving means restless discontentment.

Nevertheless, I have never heard of such a system. If there was such a system, surely the Buddha would have simply written it down step by step, and we would follow it without having to refer to a sutra…

You have suggested that the Buddha might have written out a kind of instruction manual or something, so we wouldn’t have to read the sutras (or Pali cannon)…those are the instruction manuals!


The Buddha did teach everything that one needs to know to extinguish that burning log. But beings have a lot of fire to put out, and it takes time to get to all of it.

I would recommend the zen teaching:
“On Believing in mind”
http://www.mendosa.com/way3.htm
…it’s very simple.

That's a great link, PVS, but as you can see, Nirvana is not mentioned. He mentions non-duality, Enlightenment, emptiness, and these are often used as synonyms for Nirvana. But of course, strictly speaking, they are not. I think the conflation of all these different terms creates confusion in Buddhism and since many texts were written hundreds of years apart and in different traditions, as pointed out by QQ, it leads to conflation of various concepts.

If we refer to Abhidharma, there is a very specific explanation of the dynamic of how to experience Nirvana, the fouth element. However, my problem with it is that I've never met anyone who can boast of being able to achieve cessation and experience the fouth element. This is why I'm asking if this method is in fact genuine or whether the method is simply an academic supposition.

[Supramundane]

Early Pali sutras in the Nikaya discourage speculation about Nirvana;

Not exactly. The Buddha pointed out that making fabricated ideas about nirvana is a misunderstanding of its meaning (AN 4.174), just making assumptions about the state of a liberated person is mistaken (MN 72; SN 22.85).

when asked directly about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiles or says: ‘go find it’.

Said where? Rather, the Buddha taught a single path (AN 10.095) consisting of the realisation of the four noble truths (SN 56.44). The Buddha described the path on many occasions from the beginning (SN 56.11) to the end (DN 16), providing various methods (MN 52; AN 7.46). He also explained nirvana as freedom from the three unskilful roots (SN 43) and as bliss (AN 9.34).

There could be a very simple explanation for this, namely, that Nirvana is posited as a logical consequence of samsara.

There is no such logical consequence. At the same time, both the Buddha and many of his disciples experienced liberation first hand.

Therefore, if we can break this dynamic, whereby this interplay does not occur, we will experience Nirvana. It follows that Nirvana does not appear or disappear, but it is right now all around us --- it is empty but not emptiness. It is a very specific element. When the aggregates do not appear, this ‘something else’ appears.

Nirvana is the cessation of the cause of suffering, not the absence of appearances.

Thank for your comments and especially for the sutra references! Always appreciated, my friend. I really appreciate the time you take to cite references.

I read MN52 to start, and i note that liberation, Nirvana, enlightenment and deliverence are all used interchangeably.

Do you equate them? Or are they different in meaning?

[Supramundane]

Various commentators have made the equivalence of the anatta with Nirvana, but I believe this is faulty logic.

The train of logic goes as follows:

1. The concept of Self is the opposite of Nirvana and, therefore, non-self is nirvana. Nirvana is non-self.

2. The concept of a Self has a definite geographic location. Nirvana has no location.

3. The concept of a Self is temporal. Nirvana is a temporal.

4. The concept of a Self is conditioned, whereas Nirvana is not conditioned.


I could go on. But although it is interesting how the two seem to be polar opposites, it is a leap in logic to say that anatta is Nirvana.
(However, there is a persistent logic to it all its own... the dilution of personal ego into pure awareness, luminous mind, and into the source of all things: sunyata)

I believe the easiest way to describe the concept of a Self is to refer to a concept in physics, namely that of emergent force. For example, let's take the phenomenon of buoyancy. Although a helium balloon will shoot up to the sky like a rocket, buoyancy cannot be considered as a force. It is simply an effect of the pressure differential between the atmosphere and the helium in the balloon. However, this does not mean that it can be discounted. If you grab onto a helium balloon, you will soon find yourself zooming upwards at an incredible speed: emergent or not, it sure feels real!

Gravity is also an emerging force. There is no such thing as a graviton to transmit energy but, nonetheless, if you fall off a high building, you cannot deny its power. Now let's take the concept of a Self. It has no intrinsic existence and is simply a byproduct or we might say an ‘emerging entity’.

When an individual has awareness over years of experience, socialization and interactions, he slowly builds up an identity, which is an emergent effect of his existence in the phenomenological world. Nevertheless, this entity known as the Self does not have a stand-alone nature. It cannot be discounted, but it cannot be given the same status as an inherently existing entity.

Perhaps this emergent property is most evident in meditation when one part of our mind observes a second part that is in constant movement.

The Self is not a freestanding entity, it is a construct.

And Nirvana, according to the Abhidharma, is nothing more and nothing less than the phenomenological world, just like samsara.

 

[LastLegend]

Mind isn’t ceased for them only experience of suffering and delusional thoughts ceased. They still have self because they still know who they are. Because if you ask them if there is no self, who experiences Nirvana? They’ll give you some bs like non-self. But it’s ingrained in them that’s there is a Nirvana that they want to experience.

[Supramundane]

Mind isn’t ceased for them only experience of suffering and delusional thoughts ceased. They still have self because they still know who they are. Because if you ask them if there is no self, who experiences Nirvana? They’ll give you some bs like non-self. But it’s ingrained in them that’s there is a Nirvana that they want to experience.

Valid point. Another problem I have with eliminating the self to reach Nirvana is that the Buddha never said that there is no self.

To say there is no self would be nihilism, not Nirvana. There is nothing that we can point at as self, but our nature is not anatta, neither is it atta... If that makes sense...